Boy with autism can keep therapy ducks, judge says, calling borough's decision 'cruel'

A central Pennsylvania boy with autism has won a major court victory in his multiyear fight to keep 10 therapy ducks at his home.

Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas Judge Bradford Charles said he understood Richland borough's concerns about setting a regrettable precedent “to some degree,” but left no doubt as to his views on allowing Coby Ortiz to keep the ducks.

“It would be gratuitously cruel to deprive a young boy of contact with harmless animals from whom he derives comfort and therapeutic value,” Charles wrote in an opinion dated Jan. 8. “This Court will not be a party to such cruelty.”

The borough has not said whether or not it will appeal – and despite winning in court, the uncertainty is taking its toll on 12-year-old Coby, according to his mother.

“It’s heartbreaking. It’s like you’re still stuck in a limbo that’s unfair to a child who’s done nothing wrong,” Tania Ortiz said. “He just wants this to be over.”

Background

The case began when a county zoning administrator, operating on Richland’s behalf, notified the family that Coby's ducks ran afoul of a borough ordinance prohibiting agricultural operations.

The Ortiz family appealed, and the Richland Zoning Hearing Board agreed with them in December 2017, ruling that the family had not violated the borough ordinance because the ducks were pets. Richland appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, where Charles urged all parties in a May 2018 hearing to reach an agreement on conditions for Ortiz to keep the ducks.

According to Charles, that never materialized. The homeowner provided a list of conditions in November on which the family and the borough still disagreed, and the borough never responded, Charles wrote.

Also of interest:Emotional support alligator offers comfort – paired with razor-sharp teeth

Judge's new ruling

Charles said his ruling was an attempt to both allow Coby to have the therapy ducks and alleviate Richland’s concern about establishing a precedent that would allow residents to host non-domestic animals.

However, he dismissed some of the borough’s proposed conditions, including one that would require the ducks to wear diapers while inside the Ortiz home.

“(T)he suggestion that a Court direct that ‘duck diapers’ be worn strikes us as falling on the laughable side of the reasonableness continuum,” he wrote.

He did place several conditions on the Ortiz ducks, including:

• The ducks must either be kept inside or in a fenced area to prevent them from escaping. (There is already a 6-foot fence that complies with this condition, Tania Ortiz said.)
• Coby will need an annual medical certification stating that he is receiving “tangible medical benefit” from the ducks.
• If Coby would move out of the residence, the ducks must be removed within 30 days.
• Each duck must be tagged so that it could be identified if it escapes and causes harm within the borough – at which point the borough seek an order modifying or terminating the right to keep the ducks.

“We are…confident that these conditions would prevent anyone from transforming property within the (borough) into a farm or slaughterhouse,” Charles wrote.

What’s next?

The borough still could appeal to state Commonwealth Court, according to Rich Raiders, an attorney for the Ortiz family. Raiders was skeptical that the borough could successfully argue that Charles abused his discretion in issuing his verdict.

Richland referred questions regarding the case and whether or not it would appeal to Thomas Harlan, its solicitor. A call to Harlan’s office was not immediately returned.

In late 2018 through an investigation into the Borough of Richland's legal expenses, Lebanon Daily News found that the borough spend $12,429 in 2018 to try to prevent the therapy ducks from staying with the boy in the borough.